User talk:Tarmaque/Sandbox
Welcome. I've been doing a lot of editing lately but have always avoided monsters like this one -- wasting my life on this ten minutes at a time. One thing I am reminded of is that every article on a spark should have a section on the characteristics of their spark, but should leave a common description of the Spark to its own article. GEAR Zarchne 00:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC) : Good thoughts. I haven't really messed with what I've written yet, although I usually like to have a short one-sentence description of a concept when it's first introduced, even if it does have a link to a complete definition. Somebody has to write these monsters though! I've done my share of line-editing, but that bores me. :Usually I sit down to bang something out completely before I upload it. My Wikipedia entry for Vulgar Ghost Daydream took weeks to complete, working a couple of hours every saturday. Then somebody changed everything to Ghost Talker Daydream because that's what the crappy English translation of the Anime was called. Someday I need to go back there and fix it. :Anyway, when I get back to working on this I'll take all comments under advisement. :Tarmaque 01:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC) Feedback Sorry I'm late in getting back to you. Holiday prep has kept me busy. Feh. Anyways, I hope it's okay if I go into editor mode and that my comments don't insult you or put you off. These are just my personal opinions, of course. I'd like others to give feedback too. * Really nice work on the Etymology section! This should probably go at the end of the article, just to go along with precedent. * Family: too much conjecture where there are known facts, ie. Lucrezia is pretty well-established as her mother. There's really no reason for the reader to doubt the identity of either of her parents. * Spark: Needs a statement on the style/theme of her spark (clanks, dingbots, medical, etc) * Suitors: Do we need this section? Just one line about them ought to do. The rest belongs in the articles for those particular characters. * History: It's worth noting that Agatha was not actually a bad student. She was just accident prone and nothing she built worked. She was, however a very hard worker with a love of learning for its own sake (which is why Glassvitch liked her). I think this was all in the Secret Blueprints bio. Overall, though, I can see this version being easier to read and more informative. --mnenyver 05:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC) : All good points that I more or less agree with. No offense taken! The way I write is to just sit down and start going, and I tend to take every idea to what seems like it's logical conclusion. Then the editing begins, which mostly consists of cutting down and removing superfluous crap. I came to most of your conclusions on my own after re-reading it. Now I just have to find a minute to work on it again. Blech. : My only argument is that Wikipedia conventions usually have an etymology section at the beginning, which is why I put it there. :Cheers! Tarmaque 16:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC) ::A possible answer to that last bit is that "this isn't Wikipedia" and that "in-story style" remarks take precedence. Zarchne 00:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC) Got Mad? There's a HasMad tag on your page, but no mad page. Argadi 00:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)